I don't understand why fading a losing player isn't a succesful betting strategy. In the long run a player loses because he makes bets that are -EV. So, if you do the opposite of what he does your bets should be +EV. I don't see how both sides of the bet can be -EV in the long run. I know that it has been written that even bad players hit around 48%-49% at -110 odds. Let's assume this is true. What about moneyline based sports like Baseball or Hockey. Bets on those sports are rarely placed at -110 odds. What percentage is the loser guaranteed in these sports? I tried the fade strategy twice last year and it worked. I found two losers that were posting picks on sports forums. I didn't get to run this strategy long term though. The losers stopped posting their picks after awhile.
-
-
1] Find the line you'd have to bet into to fade the guy (if he is betting into -220 then you will probably be betting +200).
2] Calculate what % of plays you have to hit to break even at the odds you're betting (eg. 33.3% at +200).
3] See if you'd hit at least that break even % (33.3% in this example) by fading the guy. If you do, then in theory you're in business.Comment -
Because most player lose to the juice. If you faded a 49% player you would be winning at 51% which is still losing to the juice on -110 lines. It takes skill to be able to loose at a 44-47% rate.Comment -
If you don't understand how both sides of a bet can be -EV than you have a lot to learn and you are misunderstanding what value is.
assuming you bet strictly lines of -110/+110 and the line is set accurately the game is now 50/50 and long term even your worst players should average out right around 50/50 which will leave you paying juice on either side of the bet.Comment -
Lines aren't accurately set where each team has a 50% chance of winning. This is why people bet on one side over the other. The worst players do not average out around 50%. Have you ever heard of Sam Farmer? He covers the NFL and makes NFL picks against the spread in different newspapers. Last year he went 104-136 against the spread. That is a winning percentage of 43.3%. Documented proof at the following link.
Comment -
<3 threads like this, guy asks a question, gets a bunch of goot answers that push him in the right direction, but he chooses to ignore it anyway, finding one example that makes him feel like he is right from the beginning...........Comment -
You were already given the answers. In the long term every monkey can hit 50%. They lose because of the juice.
What you are referring to are losing streaks. If you could predict them upfront you would have an edge, but you can't. By the time you jump on a losing streak in progress, it may already be over.Comment -
Ignore the peanut gallery SF800. ;-)
Nothing wrong with questioning what you are told until you believe it yourself..Comment -
The Juice will murder you.Comment -
No hate 800, just a little jab in the ribs...............it really isn't personal, it is just commentary on similar threads...........I don't see anything wrong with your question, but if you think about the answers given, you will realize that the answers given are correct. Finding 1 or 2 outliers for a short period of time doesn't really prove much.
As to your second comment, shutting up and listening wouldn't be a bad idea, in fact, reading some of the gems in this forum can turn someone from a square to profitable.
K, gotta run, gots to spread my hatorade elsewhereComment -
For what its worth a losing player would pick at 50% not 49%. A monkey could pick spreads at 50%Comment -
Unfortunately (or fortunately), this is a discussion that cannot be fully addressed in short answers.
First, in fact, the monkey will perform at 50% whereas most players will actually perform worse than the monkey. The monkey performs at 50% because the assumption is that the monkey's wagers will truly be selected at random and since the overall win % is close to 50%, the monkey will get a similar result. The average player performs worse because he is making a non-random selection which in most cases is detrimental to his win%.
If the no-vig line for an individual event was truly 50-50 like a coin flip, then no one in the long run would be able to have significant superior or inferior results (with the exception of very rare outliers). The results in this case would cluster very near the 50% average. The fact that the no-vig lines for individual events are not truly 50-50 is why some can perform better while others perform worse than the averages. There is obviously a lot more to this discussion but I will stop here for now.
Joe.Comment -
Depends what market place you are speaking of and at what time your wager is placed.
If you are referring to the closing lines in an NFL game than the no-vig line for an event may not be exactly 50/50 but it will be close enough to 50/50 that over a large sampling of games it will produce the same results as an equivalent sampling of a coin flip.
If you are referring to smaller markets with .30 cent lines and $500 max bets than yes the no-vig line is likely not going to suggest a win probability anywhere near as accurate as a highly liquid market with .10 cent lines and max wagers 05 $50,000.Comment -
"I don't see how both sides of the bet can be -EV in the long run. I know that it has been written that even bad players hit around 48%-49% at -110 odds. Let's assume this is true."
The way both sides lose is that if you pick at 52.379% win rate, you are still a losing bettor at -110 odds.Comment -
you got the wrong loser, and you are following too many of his plays.
I have lots of friends who are 45% handicappers, and they lose most of their "real money" wagers. Of course everyone is between 40% and 60% over thousands of trials.. this is not a strategy you want to follow a thousand times. Handicap your loser, see what happens after he wins a big bet, when he has his LOCK of the millenium. Evaluate it by seasons, and months, not millenia.
The only thing that really never changes with the seasons is bettor psychology. And most want safety. and want to avoid risk, which is completely irrational considering the game they are playing.. people for the most part are irrational. Losers do not lose every game, same way as in sports. Losers do lose in situations, and have patterns of behavior. Evaluation is the key. one question..
If you are betting against a loser and he wins, what are you really doing?Comment -
The theory is losers hit at 48%, given a significant amount of games. Reality is no one plays a significant amount of games straight. They parlay, because if they had to choose, they would lose. If you gave one of these 48% cappers 10k, and told him to bet on games, with real money. He will lose most if not all of it before the season is done. That is not theory, that is practice. It's not because of the vig, it's not because of poor money management. It's because he can not pick winners, in a realistic environment. Million dollar casinos were not built off of the vigorish... they were built off of terrible losers and the people who take their money. Tracking it in dollars and cents, the casino expects you to win early, lose late, and go back to the car, to lose even more later. They cater to people who are not disciplined risk takers, and have enough money not to care about being disciplined risk takers. Find someone with a lot of money, and little interest in keeping it. Bet against his biggest pick. you will go 75%. Seeing is believing, ask anyone on the forum, who is not talking theory about 1000s of mythical bets, there are a lot of losers here, and in every sports book. 49% would be a gift from the heavens above. Make sure your loser bet on the game, and make sure he really likes it and you have not biased him.. and you will do well.Comment -
Most people don't lose badly enough for you to be a winner.
You don't get to fade their picks at the same line they face (-110 -6.5 is not fading a bet of -110 +6.5 and -220 is not fading a bet of +200).Comment -
Can we call "no-vig lines" true odds from now on?
One must always remember that in order to have an edge, you must be getting a better price than the true odds. I thought this was basic but when people question why the opposite of a -EV bet isn't +EV, I begin to wonder. Going by that logic, there would be a +EV play in every situation and we could all die happy and rich.
Comment -
Very true. A lot of games (most) don't have +EV plays... just two -EV plays.Can we call "no-vig lines" true odds from now on?
One must always remember that in order to have an edge, you must be getting a better price than the true odds. I thought this was basic but when people question why the opposite of a -EV bet isn't +EV, I begin to wonder. Going by that logic, there would be a +EV play in every situation and we could all die happy and rich.
Comment -
If the above were true, then no one could select a subset of games that had a higher or for that matter a lower % of winners than the line would indicate and this is just not true. There is no one hard % that can be applied to any individual event. The line only indicates an expected % over a large enough sample but it really does not mean that it is a hard % for one individual event.
If you believe the line is always correct, then can I assume that you never make any wagers that have any vig based on the line?
Joe.Comment -
You can make money fading but there are some if's...... you still need to figure out a fair line for the monkey..... the monkey has to be a consistent loser.... the lines have to move against the monkey consistently.....Comment -
You can absolutely profit from your friend's plays.
Just eat his bets, offer him -108, maybe even as low as -105. Match the deposit bonus at his book. Have him deposit with you. You play the opposite of his plays juice-free. Always +EV with a losing player.Comment -
most players lose because of juice, chasing AND changing the size of their bets. it is very difficult to lose at 43% clip.Comment
